Huelskamp v. Hackmann

Missouri Court of Appeals

Huelskamp v. Hackmann

523 S.W.3d 489, 2017 WL 1056209, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 193

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104195

StatusPublished

This text of 523 S.W.3d 489 (Huelskamp v. Hackmann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huelskamp v. Hackmann, 523 S.W.3d 489, 2017 WL 1056209, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 193 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Bruce Huelskamp appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of his former business partners, Darrell Hackmann and Robert Woodsmall, in this dispute arising from Huelskamp’s withdrawal from their jointly-owned company, Alliance Tax and Accounting Services, LLC. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Bruce Huelskamp appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of his former business partners, Darrell Hackmann and Robert Woodsmall, in this dispute arising from Huelskamp’s withdrawal from their jointly-owned company, Alliance Tax and Accounting Services, LLC. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 S.W.3d 489, 2017 WL 1056209, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huelskamp-v-hackmann-moctapp-2017.